Sunday, 29 March 2009

In the comment section of the article we link to below, the author posted this comment:

**I am the author of this piece, and there is a section missing at the end. Instead of: Michael Stearns, professor in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department, Boston University School of Public Health, argues that:not "every e-cigarette supporter agrees with this theory." It should read: Michael Stearns , professor in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department, Boston University School of Public Health, argues that: "The [anti smoking movement] is so heavily funded by Big Pharma that it cannot risk the loss of pharmaceutical profits, even if disallowing the experiment comes at the expense of a substantial number of human lives."

Saturday, 28 March 2009

Obviously Health Canada must think that e-cigarettes are worse than cigarettes, Chantix and Big Pharma nicotine inhalers since they have just issued a warning to anyone selling, importing, or advertising electronic cigarette products in Canada to stop doing so immediately. Either that or they are protecting Big Pharma interests above those of smokers. We tend to think that the latter is precisely the case. Bets are that when Big Pharma copies this invention, plenty of studies boasting the merits and safety of these devices will pop up in all their favorite medical journals.

Tuesday, 24 March 2009

The e-cigarette is a relatively new invention that delivers nicotine to its user without the combustion of tobacco while mimicking the ritual smokers find so hard to break. It offers the option to continue smoking so to speak, without incommodating by-standers who may be annoyed, intolerant, or afraid of second hand smoke and prevents its users from inhaling what public health qualifies as toxic fumes.

While tobacco remains a legal product no matter how hazardous they claim it is to health and some have pushed the paranoia to the point that even miniscule residues of smoke are now such a menace that at leastone hospital has banned smokers(not smoking) from a maternity waiting room, there is increasing talk of the e-cigarette being outlawed.

You see, the problem is that this promising invention that offers an alternative solution to smoking and the smoking bans, is not marketed by Big Pharma. Smoking bans who have been fiinanced in terms of millions bypharmaceutical interestssuch as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, are a gold mine to the pharmaceutical industry who market patches, inhalers, gums and killer drugs such as Chantix and anything that might even remotely compete with such products must be eliminated pronto! Legislators are undoubtedly agressively lobbied by Big Pharma to quickly make the e-cigarette illegal. While researchers are generously funded to produce anti-tobacco studies as the need arises, the WHOor other public health authorities do not seem to be too anxious to order a study on e-cigarettes albeit they are supposedly waiting for such studies before ruling on the future of e-cigarettes. They are relying on the makers of the e-cigarette to order such studies, as if they will put any credence into what their findings might be. Since Big Pharma increasingly advertizes gum and inhalers as a substitute when you can’t smoke (due to the smoking bans), you can imagine the hole e-cigarette will dig in their profits if it becomes popular because it is much more satisfying to smokers as many who have tried it claim. Our corrupt and/or naive legislators and public health officials obviously believe that the same nicotine is healthy if delivered by a pharmaceutical company and dangerous if delivered by anyone else. We are amazed at how many pharmaceutical substitutes are not only government approved but even reimbursed in many cases even though some products are proven to be quite dangerous, such as Chantix which causes serious side effects including suicide. Medical and public health authorities profess that even something like Chantix is still better than smoking. Yet according to their contradictory logic, e-cigarettes are not better than smoking? Are they more dangerous than Chantix? What’s wrong with this picture?

Wednesday, 18 March 2009

With all the recent talk bringing us closer and closer to mandatory protective helmets in Quebec, we thought our readers might be interested to take a look at the other side of the story on how safe helmets really are.

First, a video of a segment of 20/20 with John Stossel discussing mandatory bicycle helmets and how they have actually proven to present more dangers to those who wear them than those who don’t. The segment also discusses the unintended consequences of other safety measures to which we are subjected to either voluntarily or by law.

Second, a review of medical literature on helmet efficacy from the National Ski Areas Association in Florida which points to various studies that show no significant reduced risk when wearing helmets than when not.

Tuesday, 17 March 2009

Following in B.C.'s trails that test drove theEnhanced Driver’s License(EDL), Premier Jean Charest announced today that in the next few weeks, any Quebecer wishing to travel to the U.S., can obtain an EDL for 40 $ - much cheaper and convenient than a passport - he advertizes.

Convenient for who, is the question every citizen who chooses an EDL over a passport to save less than 8 $ a year, should be asking themselves while they still have the option. As contrary to a passport when the only time one usually carries it is when travelling outside of the country, the EDL will accompany each and every one of our moves every time we use our car or carry our wallet even if it’s just to go to the corner store. We don’t only allow our every step to the monitoring and recording of bureaucrats, but we open the door to future invasions of our privacy by employers, marketing firms, public health authorities, big corporations that will undoubtedly invent a reason to access our RFID for ‘’our own good’’ of course. It will undoubtedly become a dangerous assault to privacy much worse than the cell phone or the GPS. Obviously Quebec did not consider that it was a serious enough issue to consult or debate with the population before adopting the EDL. The sheep will obediently follow, is what Charest must have reflected when proudly showing off his own EDL - the very first issued in Quebec.

It is optional…for now. But how long before we are told that passports are a useless burden and will be totally abolished to be replaced by the EDL? And if you think that travelling to other countries would be difficult without a passport, take comfort in knowing that with globalization, it is more than probable that every country will eventually adopt EDL’s instead of passports.

By opting for such ‘’convenient solutions’’ without thinking of the future consequences, we get hopelessly trapped into accepting a state control that surpasses even Orwell’s fiction. Remember that albeit we can use our car without a GPS, a cell phone or our passport, driving without a driver’s license is quite inconvenient and costly! Say a resounding no to the ‘’convenient’’ EDL now while we still can!

Wednesday, 11 March 2009

In the greatly varied world of public activism, the people who really stand out can often be qualified as either Champions or as Heroes. Champions are people who choose their causes, and apply their considerable skills and abilities to trying to bring about change, to improve a situation, to fight an injustice and ultimately, to create in the world a better place.

Heroes are those who, when confronted by adversity, stand up for themselves and for their fellows, particularly in cases where most people would not dare speak up or challenge that which affronts them. Often at great risk, or great cost, or both, Heroes have the courage to defy even seemingly unsurmountable powers, to draw a line in the sand and to stand by their principles no matter how daunting the challenge may seem.

Gian Turci was both a Hero and Champion for causes no less important than those of individual liberty, truth, integrity, and fundamental justice. One of the many things that made Gian such a great man was that he was able to see both the forest and the trees. He understood that the assault on smoker’s rights was an assault on people’s rights, and he saw the dangers of allowing well-funded interest groups and overly-powerful governments run rampant with the weapons of junk science, absolute healthism, and sycophantic media.

Gian’s specific involvement in smoker’s rights began when he was living in Canada and his children came home complaining that at school, all of the students had been made to line up while a health official proceeded to smell each of them in search of the tell-tale odour of tobacco. Students guilty of having the smell of cigarettes on their clothes were taken aside and interrogated, and notices were eventually sent to the parents. Where most modern parents would have bowed their heads in shame and accepted the dogma that they should feel guilty for smoking around their children, or for having failed to prevent their children from becoming smokers, Gian reacted in righteous outrage over this grossly insulting treatment, and he decided to react rather than allow himself and his family to be walked upon.

With over a decade of activism in the name of personal liberties, Gian was a central figure in FORCES International, and more recently, The International Coalition Against Prohibition – possibly the world’s two most important movements in the fight against health-totalitarianism. What Gian hated the most in his opponents was dishonesty and hypocrisy, two unendearing characteristics that were manifested most clearly in the “anti” movement’s heavy dependence upon junk science to justify their outrageous assertions. What Gian tolerated the least among his own allies was the self-delusional belief that the battle against health-totalitarianism could be won without concerted, unified, dedicated commitment to a sound strategy and an effective long-term plan. He spoke up clearly, strongly and consistently to broadcast both of these messages in a coherent and intelligent manner that few can match and that all with any integrity had no choice but to respect.

What made Gian a Hero was that he fought against what he understood to be a very hypocritical attack on his rights to do with his body as he pleased, to enjoy life in the manner of his choice, to raise his children according to his best judgment, and to live free of state-sponsored and corporate-financed attacks on his lifestyle. What made him a Champion was that he remained committed to his cause, shared his vision, and taught what he had learned to those around him with an enormous generosity of time and effort. What will make us miss him so much was that he was also an enormously warm and passionate individual who truly understood the meaning of integrity and of friendship.

With Gian’s passing, we who knew him and had the pleasure of working and interacting with him suffer a great loss. We who did not know him personally suffer an even greater loss – that of never having the opportunity to meet the man and feel the passion that drove him to such great efforts and such endurance in the face of a world-wide bureaucratic juggernaut.

None of us were ready to carry on the fight without him .... not now, not yet! But we all know that there is absolutely nothing in the world Gian Turci would want more than for us to do exactly that – to continue. And as we do exactly that, as we continue to fight the good fight, we can all be thankful for the legacy of well reasoned argument and analysis that Gian has left behind, for the innumerable networks and contacts that were brought together by him, for the solid foundations he helped lay beneath our arguments and self-doubts, and for the role model of integrity and passionate dedication that he was to his cause – to our cause.

May each of us carry a little bit of Gian Turci in our hearts as we too raise our heads and refuse to bow down when confronted by lies, insults and ridicule. May each of us successfully emulate him in blending pride, passion, dedication, integrity, intelligence and reason as we speak up to claim and reclaim our own rights, and to defend the rights of others.

Wednesday, 4 March 2009

‘’TV boozing may drive you to drink’’ reads the Chronical Herald article headline. It goes on explaining how watching movies that depict drinking makes young men crave for alcoholic beverages.

80 university students observed, drank different quantities of alcohol depending on whether what their group watched depicted more or less drinking and found that the group that watched movies that portrayed more drinking, drank more than those that portrayed less.

We will let our regular readers decide if this is what one would call science in the traditional definition of the word.

We will also let our regular readers decide if a cohort of 80 is a big enough sample to draw any reliable ‘’causal’’ conclusions from an observational study, especially that this study’s findings are unique according to the authors.

Nevertheless, we do believe that what we’re presented with on the big and small screen can and does in fact influence some people’s behavior to a certain extent. We also believe that this is true for everything that we observe in society whether on screen or in real life. There is no way possible that we can shield ourselves from every risky or unhealthy behavior unless we live in a state governed and policed by puritans where everything but what the state deems appropriate would be forbidden. Pushed to its extremes such a state would only help inevitably develop a strong underground society that would better serve the needs and instincts of the citizens because such is human nature and anyone that has tried to tamper with it in the past has failed miserably. This is also why humans, contrary to animals, were gifted with an important weapon that serves their instinct of survival -- it is called intelligence. It is this weapon that allows them to reason and protect themselves and their offspring from a myriad of potential dangers and harms. We concede that not everyone’s weapon is equal in strength and some need a little help from other members of society. Help should be offered in the form of compassion and education towards those who need it most, not prohibitions for each and every one of us one who will eventually have absolutely nothing worth to live for.

Engels, the principal investigator of the study, may believe in artistic freedom and thus not be favorable to bans, but he has nevertheless given a so called scientific weapon to neo-prohibitionist extremists who will only be too happy to use it to advance their agenda.

Search this & other blogs & links

Welcome - Bienvenue

This bilingual blogspot replaces our news articles and commentary section in our main sites. If you would like us to post and comment any specific article, please mail your suggestion to votrevoix@cagecanada.ca.